alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Supreme Court of Florida

____________
No. SC20

- 1563

____________

IN RE : AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.112.

April 1, 2021

PER CURIAM

. This matter is before the Court for consideration of proposed

amendments to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure . We have

jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.

The Florida Bar’s Criminal Procedure Rules Committee

(Committee) filed a report to amend rule 3.112, Minimum

Standards for Attorneys in Capital Cases. T he Committee proposed

adding a new paragraph to subdivision (d), List of Qualified Conflict

Counsel, to include a list in each circuit court of c ounsel

disqualified pursuant to section 27.7045, Florida Statutes (2020)

(Capital case proceedings; constitutionally deficient representation)- 2

- to represent individuals either charged with a capital offense or

sentenced to death

. With slight modification t o the Committee’s proposal, we

amend r ule 3.112 (d) as follows. First, we retitle subdivision (d) to

“List s of Qualified and Disqualified Conflict Counsel

. ” Next, we add

new subdivision (d)(3), which provides as follows:

The chief judge for each circuit shall maintain a list of counsel who are disqualified to provide capital case representation pursuant to section 27.7045, Florida Statutes, and such list and any amendments thereto shall be forwarded to the chief judge of e very other circuit.

Accordingly, we amend Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure

3.112 as reflected in the appendix to this opinion. New language is

underscored. The amendments to the rule shall become effective

July 1, 2021

.

It is so ordered.

CANADY, C. J., and POLSTON, LABARGA, LAWSON, MUÑIZ, COURIEL, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.

THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE AMENDMENTS.

Original Proceedings

– Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure

Honorable Angela Cote D empsey, Chair, Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, Tallahassee, Florida
, Joshua E. Doyle, Executive- 3

- Director, and Mikalla Andies Davis, Staff Liaison, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida,

for Petitioner- 4

- APPENDIX

Rule 3.112 Minimum Standards for Atto rneys in Capital Cases

(a)

- (c) [No changes]

(d) List s of Qualified and Disqualified Conflict Counsel.

(1)

- (2) [No changes]

(3) The chief judge for each circuit shall maintain a list of counsel who are disqualified to provide capital case representation pursuant to section 27.7045, Florida Statutes, and such list and any amendments thereto shall be forwarded to the chief judge of e very other circuit.

(e)

- ( l ) [No changes]

Committee Comments [No change]

Criminal Court Steering Committee Note [No change]
1

Respondents are obligated under the federal habeas rules to attach to their answer those specific portions of the trial

transcript to which they have deemed relevant and cited. See Rule 5.

2

 Petitioner is advised that this Court does not appoint counsel in federal habeas cases. The only panels available to

the Court for this purpose are the Prisoner Civil Rights Litigation and Employment Discrimination panels.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

|

TUNG MA | CIVIL ACTION

|

Plaintiff, |

|

v. | NO. 02-4380

|

KENNETH D. KYLER, et al. |

|

Defendants. |

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 30th day of September, 2003, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s “Motion for

Expansion of the Record” (Doc. 16), and Respondents’ Brief in Opposition thereto (Doc. 17), IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 

1. Respondents shall serve Petitioner with a copy of any excerpt from the state court

trial transcript on which they relied in any pleading filed with this Court, in

accordance with Rule 5 of the rules governing § 2254 habeas cases, within thirty (30)

days of the date of this Order.1

2. Petitioner is granted leave to file a supplemental reply to his objections to the

Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation. Petitioner’s supplemental reply, if any,

shall be filed and served within forty-five (45) days after receiving a copy of the trial

transcript excerpts from Respondents as provided in paragraph 1.

3. Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED.

2

 

BY THE COURT:

_____________________________

Hon. Petrese B. Tucker, U.S.D.J.

Case 2:02-cv-04380-PBT Document 23 Filed 09/30/2003 Page 1 of 1
# Part 1	Fiscal Year 2018 Reporting

**SUPPLEMENT	Section III**

**U.S. Standard General Ledger Account Transaction Categories**

**TRANSACTION**

**CODETRANSACTION DESCRIPTION**

# A. Funding

100 - 399	Budgetary Resources Other Than Collections 400 - 699	Authority Transfers

700 - 799	Reimbursables and Other Income

# B. Disbursements and Payables

E. **Accruals/Nonbudgetary Transfers Other Than Disbursements and Collections**

100 - 399	Accrual, Depreciation, Amortization, and Depletion

400 - 499	Accumulated and Allocated Costs Not in Categories Above 500 - 799	Transfers Without Budgetary Impact

# F. Yearend

100 - 299	Preclosing Entries

300 - 499	Closing Entries

# G. Memorandum Entries

100 - 299	All Memorandum Entries (Excluding Closing Memorandum Entries)

# H. Other Specialized Transaction Entries

100 - 799	Other

# Bulletin No. 2018-05	III AC - 1	June 2018
Before the Second Division,

January 13, 1944

No. 49134.

#### Protest 83084-K of Wm. Goodacre & Sons, Ltd. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The protest w as dismissed.
#### Rufus GIBSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. DiRUBBIO, R. Haight, Giavatto, Torres, John Doe(s), New York State Correctional Officials at Fishkill Correctional Facility in their official and personal capacities, Defendants-Ap-pellees.

No. 00-0265.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 18, 2001.

*27Rufus Gibson, Malone, NY, on the brief, pro se.

David Lawrence, III, Assistant Solicitor General of the State of New York, Mark Gimpel, Deputy Solicitor General, and Marion S. Buchbinder, Assistant Solicitor General, on the brief, for Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, for appellees.

Present CARDAMONE, LEVAD and KATZMANN, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

On May 4, 1999, plaintiff-appellant Rufus Gibson commenced this action *pro se*against five corrections officers at the Fishkill Correctional Facility. Gibson’s complaint asserted a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that defendants-appellees violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to take reasonable measures to guarantee his safety and to protect him from serious harm by other inmates, as well as state law claims of assault, battery, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In a Memorandum and Order dated August 16, 2000, the district court dismissed Gibson’s § 1983 and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. The district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Gibson’s other state law claims and therefore dismissed them without prejudice.

On appeal, Gibson challenges the district court’s dismissal of both his § 1983 claim and his claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. We have reviewed Gibson’s contentions and find them to be without merit. For a prison official to be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the injuries a prisoner suffers at the hands of another prisoner, the plaintiff must show (1) “that he is incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm,” *Farmer v. Brennan,*511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994), and (2) that the prison official was “deliberate[ly] indifferen[t]” to the plaintiffs health or safety, *Hayes v. New York City Dep’t of Corr. .,*84 F.3d 614, 620 (2d Cir.1996). The district court correctly dismissed Gibson’s § 1983 claim because his complaint fails to allege facts from which one could reasonably conclude that defendants-appellees were ever deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious injury to him. The district court was also justified in dismissing Gibson’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. Gibson’s complaint simply fails to allege conduct that rises to the level of outrageousness required to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under New York law. *See Murphy v. Am. Home Prods. Corp.,*58 N.Y.2d 293, 303, 461 N.Y.S.2d 232, 448 N.E.2d 86 (1983).

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18. U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003



     The undersigned  executive  officers of the Registrant  hereby certify that
this  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the  quarter  ended June 30,  2004 (the
"Report") fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,  and the  information  contained in the Report
fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition and results
of operations of the Registrant.


                             By:      /s/ Gary C. Loraditch
                                      -----------------------------------
                                      Name:    Gary C. Loraditch
                                      Title:   President



                             By:      /s/ Bonnie M. Klein
                                      -----------------------------------
                                      Name:    Bonnie M. Klein
                                      Title:   Vice President and Treasurer

Date: August 11, 2004
No. 57978.

protest 219011-K (New York).

#### Selsi Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise and issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. D. 1519). In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the cited case, the protest was dismissed, and the matter was remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).
No. 55213.

#### Stephen Rug Mills, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 165702-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protest was dismissed.
No. 51952.

#### F. H. Paul & Stein Bros. *v.*United States,

protest 123240-K/12797 (New Orleans).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers the court was unable to find any evidence sufficient to overcome the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct. The protest was therefore overruled.
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-2258

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Hosa R. Howard, also known as Pee Wee lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern

____________ Submitted: December 3, 2021 Filed: December 8, 2021 [Unpublished]

____________ Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Hosa Howard appeals after the district court 1 denied his motion seeking a sentence reduction under the First Step Act. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief challenging the denial.

1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying Howard a sentence reduction after considering the parties’ arguments. See United States v. McDonald, 944 F.3d 769, 771 (8th Cir. 2019) (defendant’s eligibility for reduced sentence under First Step Act is reviewed de novo, and district court’s decision to grant or deny authorized sentence reduction is reviewed for abuse of discretion); United States v. Williams, 943 F.3d 841, 844 (8th Cir. 2019) (sentencing court must have considered the parties’ arguments and have a reasoned basis for its decision). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel permission to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
No. 62528.

#### Hudson Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 325493-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Case 2:04-cv-00780-MCE -KJM   Document 17    Filed 10/25/05   Page 1 of 2

Case 2:04-cv-00780-MCE -KJM   Document 17    Filed 10/25/05   Page 2 of 2

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-26T18:56:10-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

DOLORES (DEE) BARRETT : 

 : 

 V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW 

 : 

THE GREATER HATBORO CHAMBER NO. 02 -cv-4421 

OF COMMERCE, INC.; JOHN J.(BUD) : 

AIKEN, AND MICKEY GLANTZ : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

ORDER

 AND NOW, this___________day of April, 2004 upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion 

to Compel Answer to Production of Documents and Documents, no answer or objection having 

been received, Defendant Greater Hatboro Chamber of Commerce Inc, is Ordered to produce all 

documents responsive to requests #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #13, #14, #15, #16 and #17 to 

counsel for Plaintiff forthwith. 

 BY THE COURT, 

 ________________________________ 

 Honorable Petrese B. Tucker, U. S. D. J. 

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 15-3 Filed 04/15/2004 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the annual report of Furniture Brands International, Inc.(the
Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, David P. Howard, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
               respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |                                     
| | ------------------------------------
| |                                     
| | /s/ David P. Howard                 
| | David P. Howard                     
| | Title:   Chief  Financial Officer   
| | Furniture Brands International, Inc.
| | March 12, 2004
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

SCHUMACHER, : CIVIL ACTION

:

Plaintiff, : NO. 02-4477

 : 

 v. : 

:

SOUDERTON AREA SCHOOL :

DISTRICT, et al., :

:

Defendants. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this ___ day of November, 2002, it is hereby

ORDERED that a conference for clarification on settlement status, 

in the above-captioned matter, shall be held on November 22, 2002

at 12:00 p.m. in Room #17614, United States Courthouse.

BY THE COURT:

________________________

JAMES T. GILES C.J.

copies by FAX on

to

Case 2:02-cv-04477-JG Document 7 Filed 11/06/2002 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:01-cv-01252-JP Document 86 Filed 07/03/07 Page 1 of 26
Case 2:01-cv-01252-JP Document 86 Filed 07/03/07 Page 2 of 26
Case 2:01-cv-01252-JP Document 86 Filed 07/03/07 Page 3 of 26
Case 2:01-cv-01252-JP Document 86 Filed 07/03/07 Page 4 of 26
Case 2:01-cv-01252-JP Document 86 Filed 07/03/07 Page 5 of 26
Case 2:01-cv-01252-JP Document 86 Filed 07/03/07 Page 6 of 26
Case 2:01-cv-01252-JP Document 86 Filed 07/03/07 Page 7 of 26
Case 2:01-cv-01252-JP Document 86 Filed 07/03/07 Page 8 of 26
Case 2:01-cv-01252-JP Document 86 Filed 07/03/07 Page 9 of 26
Case 2:01-cv-01252-JP Document 86 Filed 07/03/07 Page 10 of 26
Case 2:01-cv-01252-JP Document 86 Filed 07/03/07 Page 11 of 26
Case 2:01-cv-01252-JP Document 86 Filed 07/03/07 Page 12 of 26
Case 2:01-cv-01252-JP Document 86 Filed 07/03/07 Page 13 of 26
Case 2:01-cv-01252-JP Document 86 Filed 07/03/07 Page 14 of 26
Case 2:01-cv-01252-JP Document 86 Filed 07/03/07 Page 15 of 26
Case 2:01-cv-01252-JP Document 86 Filed 07/03/07 Page 16 of 26
Case 2:01-cv-01252-JP Document 86 Filed 07/03/07 Page 17 of 26
Case 2:01-cv-01252-JP Document 86 Filed 07/03/07 Page 18 of 26
Case 2:01-cv-01252-JP Document 86 Filed 07/03/07 Page 19 of 26
Case 2:01-cv-01252-JP Document 86 Filed 07/03/07 Page 20 of 26
Case 2:01-cv-01252-JP Document 86 Filed 07/03/07 Page 21 of 26
Case 2:01-cv-01252-JP Document 86 Filed 07/03/07 Page 22 of 26
Case 2:01-cv-01252-JP Document 86 Filed 07/03/07 Page 23 of 26
Case 2:01-cv-01252-JP Document 86 Filed 07/03/07 Page 24 of 26
Case 2:01-cv-01252-JP Document 86 Filed 07/03/07 Page 25 of 26
Case 2:01-cv-01252-JP Document 86 Filed 07/03/07 Page 26 of 26
PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Thomas More Holland, Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing

Plaintiff’s Supplemental Argument III in Opposition to Defendant’s Kent Line Motion for Summary Judgement

and Affidavit to the following parties, by hand delivery:

The Honorable Berle M. Schiller

United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Pennsylvania

601 Market Street, Room 5918

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106

United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Clerks Office

601 Market Street, 2nd Floor

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106

I, Thomas More Holland, Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing

Plaintiff’s Supplemental Argument III in Opposition to Defendant’s Kent Line Motion for Summary Judgement

and Affidavit to the following parties, by regular mail:

Ann-Michele G. Higgins, Esquire

Rawle & Henderson LLP

The Widener Building

One South Penn Square

Philadelphia, PA 19107

A. Robert Degen, Esquire

Fox Rothschild O’Brien & Frankel

2000 Market Street - 10th floor

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Faustino Mattioni, Esquire

Mattioni, Ltd.

399 Market Street

2d Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19106

Mr. Joseph Levy

615 Newton Avenue

Oaklyn, NJ 08107

Maureen Levy

118 Woodland Terrace

Oakland, NJ 09107

September 15, 2003 

Date THOMAS MORE HOLLAND

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 2:02-cv-04488-BMS Document 56-2 Filed 09/15/2003 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001051830
<NAME>                        MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST IV
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-24-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                   412,372
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,340
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               419,712
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 419,712
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,340
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    400,000
<COMMON>                                        12,372
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   419,712
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,020
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,020
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             22,020
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    22,020
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
04.03
##### 



Exhibit 12 AMERUS GROUP CO.
STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF RATIOS
RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES Six Months Ended June 30,2004
    
    2003
    
    2003
    
    2002
    
    2001
    
    2000
    
    1999($ in thousands)EarningsPre-tax income from continuing operations
    
    $
    88,566
    
    
    $
    117,581
    
    
    $
    239,238
    
    
    $
    89,157
    
    
    $
    119,377
    
    
    $
    115,736
    
    
    $
    101,113Less: Minority interest
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    21,677
    
    
    
    28,107Less: Income (loss) from equity investees
    
    
    3,879
    
    
    
    2,687
    
    
    
    12,563
    
    
    
    (3,993
    )
    
    
    5,072
    
    
    
    3,481
    
    
    
    (603
    )Add: Distributed income from equity investees
    
    
    290
    
    
    
    1,466
    
    
    
    1,521
    
    
    
    2,591
    
    
    
    7,730
    
    
    
    4,449
    
    
    
    1,80484,977
    
    
    
    116,360
    
    
    
    228,196
    
    
    
    95,741
    
    
    
    122,035
    
    
    
    95,027
    
    
    
    75,413Fixed charges
    
    
    237,389
    
    
    
    294,060
    
    
    
    570,646
    
    
    
    492,093
    
    
    
    371,667
    
    
    
    344,363
    
    
    
    356,617Total Earnings
    
    $
    322,366
    
    
    $
    410,420
    
    
    $
    798,842
    
    
    $
    587,834
    
    
    $
    493,702
    
    
    $
    439,390
    
    
    $
    432,030Fixed ChargesInterest credited to policyowners
    
    $
    220,245
    
    
    $
    279,168
    
    
    $
    538,622
    
    
    $
    464,022
    
    
    $
    341,575
    
    
    $
    312,008
    
    
    $
    325,941Interest expense on debt
    
    
    16,334
    
    
    
    14,374
    
    
    
    30,154
    
    
    
    25,487
    
    
    
    26,011
    
    
    
    29,723
    
    
    
    28,983Amortization of debt issuance costs
    
    
    464
    
    
    
    374
    
    
    
    1,137
    
    
    
    985
    
    
    
    3,155
    
    
    
    1,833
    
    
    
    1,538Estimate of interest within rental expense
    
    
    346
    
    
    
    144
    
    
    
    733
    
    
    
    1,599
    
    
    
    926
    
    
    
    799
    
    
    
    155Total Combined Fixed Charges and Preference Security Dividends
    
    $
    237,389
    
    
    $
    294,060
    
    
    $
    570,646
    
    
    $
    492,093
    
    
    $
    371,667
    
    
    $
    344,363
    
    
    $
    356,617Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
    
    
    1.36
    
    
    
    1.40
    
    
    
    1.40
    
    
    
    1.19
    
    
    
    1.33
    
    
    
    1.28
    
    
    
    1.21
 45